MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034217237 · doi:10.1145/2668956.2668963

On designing migrating agents

2014· article· en· W2034217237 on OpenAlexaff
Kaveh Hassani, Won‐Sook Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionAutonomous agentArchitectureDistributed computingRobotMulti-agent systemTestbedAvatarAgent architectureArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the realm of multi-agent systems, migration refers to the ability of an agent to transfer itself from one embodiment such as a graphical avatar into different embodiments such as a robotic android. Embodied agents usually function in a dynamic, uncertain, and uncontrolled environment, and exploiting them is a chaotic and error-prone task which demands high-level behavioral controllers to be able to adapt to failure at lower levels of the system. The conditions in which space robotic systems such as spacecraft and rovers operate, inspire by necessity, the development of robust and adaptive control software. In this paper, we propose a generic architecture for migrating and autonomous agents inspired by onboard autonomy which enables the developers to tailor the agent's embodiment by defining a set of feasible actions and perceptions associated with the new body. Evaluation results suggest that the architecture supports migration by performing consistent deliberative and reactive behaviors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207